IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OKLAHOMA OPEN MEETING

LAW, THE AGENDA WAS POSTED MARCH 13, 1998, IN THE

MUNICIPAL BUILDING AT 723 SOUTH LEWIS

This regular meeting of the Stillwater Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Nordquist at 5:35 p.m.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.

Minutes for the February 18 meeting were approved with the following corrections - page 8, 3^rd paragraph changed to read, "Kester responded a 20-foot setback is being complied with." and page 18, 5^th paragraph changed to read, "Bertenshaw said with this development we are considering utilizing slightly smaller lots than Stoneridge when the commission required the Stoneridge developer to return and guarantee larger lots if septic systems were to be utilized."

Motion by Bertenshaw, Second Patton - Roll Call: Vaught; Miller; Patton; Bertenshaw; Nordquist - yes

Minutes for the March 4 meeting were approved as submitted - Motion by Miller, Second by Bertenshaw - Roll Call: Patton - abstain; Vaught; Bertenshaw; Miller; Nordquist - yes

1. Consider a request from Willa Grooms for approval of a MAP AMENDMENT to rezone property located at 810 West Airport Road from RS2 (Medium-Lot, Single-Family District) to RT (Two-Family District). (MA-171)

Community Development Director Wesley provided the physical description, location, current and requested zonings, and surrounding uses for this request. The requested rezoning is to permit a duplex to be constructed on the property. Wesley noted the Comprehensive Plan designates this area for low-density, residential development which allows 10 dwelling units per acre.

Staff notes the primary function of an arterial road is to move traffic; therefore, staff discourages residential development fronting on an arterial road due to the traffic conflicts created. Wesley provided some projection figures from the Transportation Plan for Airport Road (serving as a minor arterial street).

Commissioner Miller clarified the adjacent property owners have been notified of this request. Wesley responded yes, they have.

Wesley provided the two alternatives from staff's March 18 report, and the staff recommendation of denial of this request based on evidence that single-family homes can be successfully built and occupied in such locations and due to concerns about the potential of negative impact to traffic on Airport Road, if the area were to transition to duplex uses having direct arterial frontage.

Commissioner Patton clarified this recommendation is based not necessarily on just this one tract, but on the entire area's future development? Wesley affirmed this observation and noted the future precedent this would set.

Chair Nordquist stated his discomfort with the existing situation noting it appears as spot zoning.

Wesley stated the request does meet the Comprehensive Plan with regards to the land use designation, so one could make this argument; but, one could also make the argument for the spot zoning situation. Wesley pointed out "the other side of the picture" is that if this isn't rezoned and remains RS2 - do we expect it to develop single family?

It was noted that the applicant's copy of the report and agenda were mailed out last Friday - the applicant was not present to speak regarding the request.

2. Consider a request from Randall Friedemann for approval of a MINOR SUBDIVISION of a tract of land located at 301 South Stallard into two tracts. (MS-311)

City Planner Brown presented the physical description, location, zoning, and surrounding uses of this request. Brown noted the surrounding streets to this location and provided a description of their purpose for movement of traffic. Five additional feet of right-of-way is needed on Stallard Street in order to meet the standard, noted Brown.

Brown pointed out creation of this lot fits in with the surrounding neighborhood. Due to the existing utility easement along the south boundary, Brown said this further limits the actual buildable space which is available on the lot. Sanitary sewer is available for this site - there is an existing line which runs north/south. This line is City maintained and a sanitary sewer easement over this is required. Brown noted the applicant has drawn up a legal description which may be utilized to create the needed easement.

There is only 25 feet of right-of-way on East Third Avenue for a total of 50 feet of total right-of-way existing - Brown stated it is possible the commission may wish to make this a total of 70 feet in order to meet the standard. Because the existing garage is so close, staff has suggested an additional five feet of right-of-way - the legal description for this dedication could exclude the garage area. Staff has recommended an additional five-feet of right-of-way for Stallard Street.

Commissioner Bertenshaw referenced page 3 of the Land Use Fact Sheet for Case MS-311 - and, Brown explained when the applicant applies for the building permit, the Building Official has the responsibility of checking to see if a drainage study is complete. He added the lot with the existing home is not subject to this. Mr. Brown noted this is a new process due to the recent changes to the drainage ordinance.

Chair Nordquist clarified if it is staff's intent to require the additional right-of-way on Third Avenue to go around the garage? Brown said this is correct and noted there will never be a need to third lane this street. The Public Works Director has indicated though that we need the extra width to make improvements as a two-lane street in the future. Staff finds even if the street has to be completely redone in the future, there is no need to obtain the portion by the garage if the applicant desires to exclude it.

Jimmy Hill, 2700 South Western Road, local engineer, spoke in favor of this request and requested the commission consider item #1 - encouraging that the applicant pursue the closing and vacation of the existing utility easement along the southern boundary of the tract. He noted the applicant's need to have this flexibility to seek vacation of the easement or leave it is place. Mr. Hill explained staff has noted this process would be expensive, so they are requesting this not be a requirement. Hill stated a corrected legal has been prepared for this property, and it will grant the proper easement to cover the actual location of the sewer line. Mr. Hill noted the garage has been located in place longer than Third Avenue has been. He added there is no objection to the five-feet of right-of-way.

Responding to Commissioner Bertenshaw's question, Hill indicated item #3 - filing a street covenant for Third Avenue - is agreeable also.

Brown provided the two alternative's from staff's report and the staff recommendation along with the four conditions to be met with approval.

3. Consider a request from Sunrise LLC for approval of a FINAL PLAT for Sunrise Addition, Second Section, a residential subdivision to be located on the south side of the 1300 block of East Sunrise Avenue. (FP-163)

City Planner Brown gave the physical description, background/history, zoning, and surrounding uses of this request. Brown pointed out the property owners to the east are most affected by this development. Brown stated the sewer line has been installed, but the as-built plans and acceptance is not yet final. The proposed street off of Sunrise is to be public - it will have a standard cul-de-sac.

Staff noted the final plat proposed deviates from the preliminary plat previously approved as an additional lot has been added along the east side of Grandview Street - Staff believes this should not be a problem as the lot widths on both sides will be the same and points out they did not notice the addition of the lot until late in the review process. Brown pointed out staff has not attempted notification of the surrounding property owners to see if they have concerns, and added as there is a change, it may be determined preferable that notification take place.

With regards to the lack of public access to the nearby Canyon Rim Park, Brown explained there is 20 feet lacking which would otherwise provide full vehicular public access to this area. Brown focused the group on considering maintaining public vehicular access into the park from Grandview Street to avoid a land-lock situation - the park was a gift to the City. Brown explained the City probably erred in design of the regional detention pond by not considering the long-term needs of access to the remainder of the park area. Staff has presented a minor design change which could remedy the situation for both vehicular and pedestrian access. The Park Planner has indicated the most likely use of this park is a playground or a playing field. It is desirable to have a small parking lot in order to avoid vehicles parking in the cul-de-sac.

Brown provided different scenarios which would be workable and aid the access problem into the public park.

Brown stated the option the applicant has proposed will require a drainage flume out south of the end of the cul-de-sac - he agreed for the short term this will meet the City's needs for immediate maintenance access. This access for the City can be done through the drainage easement, but staff pointed out that this would only provide the City access for maintenance purposes - not the public. Brown said this scenario does not meet the long-term needs of the public, but does meet immediate needs.

Commissioner Miller clarified there was no notification to the property owners? Brown explained this is not the normal procedure with a final plat application. He noted he is not sure whether the additional lot should be of concern or not. Miller expressed her concern that the property owners within 300 feet should know about this.

Commissioner Patton expressed his confusion as he had thought the commission directed the applicant and City staff to work out the extension agreement with approval of the preliminary plat. Brown explained they had discussed this issue and came up with the three scenarios offered this evening - he noted the scenario in the best interest of the public from a long-term interest is the one preferred by staff, but is not preferred by the applicant.

Patton asked if movement of the cul-de-sac an additional 20 feet with the City paying the difference is no longer workable? Brown responded as designated on the plat there is currently 60 feet of right-of-way indicated - this would need to be extended south of the cul-de-sac to allow the City to go in and pave the additional 20 feet in the future. Staff isn't proposing that the applicant go in and pave the extra distance, but dedicate the right-of-way so that the City had an option at a future date.

Mr. Brown did note there are no immediate plans to do anything in the park, but he pointed out the advantage of not limiting the possibilities by closing off convenient access at this time.

Chair Nordquist stated his preference of the hammer head scenario as more logical - he noted this gives City staff maintenance access. Brown stated this is logical, but the only draw back to this scenario is the uncertainty of when future development of the park might happen, and being without a good turnaround for that period of time.

Brown said the only adverse impact of asking for the additional 20 feet of right-of-way on the southern end of the cul-de-sac is the developer would prefer the general public not be provided access through the development.

Chair Nordquist expressed concern about having a cul-de-sac which serves no purpose.

Commissioner Miller said if we believe there is a viable possibility this situation will stay this way for the next 20 years, then what are we doing in so far as emergency and sanitation vehicles having to make a turnaround? Brown explained now, it doesn't look like anything is going to happen in the area to develop the park soon.

Environmental Advisor Ritter shared his opinion that the swell mentioned earlier which could be created by extension of the street is not aesthetically objectionable for the area.

Commissioner Vaught desired to know the likelihood of this area for development of a park in the future? Brown said this was gifted to the City - he noted the use of nearby Skyline Park is through a lease agreement, as it is owned by the public school system. If this lease agreement should be lost, then there will be more emphasis on the need of a neighborhood park for this area. Vaught expressed regret that the City did not plan ahead for the access needed at the time the regional detention facility was handled.

There was brief discussion regarding the ability of the City creating access from Manning (from either the north or south). It was noted the regional detention pond would need to be reworked with dirt work - this would be an additional cost to the City. The additional dirt work would make vehicular access possible. There is presently (without dirt work) room for only pedestrian access on the south end.

Commissioner Bertenshaw asked how long ago the detention facility installation took place? Brown replied over 10 years ago.

Responding to clarifications sought by Commissioner Bertenshaw, Brown explained the standard dimensions of a hammer head. It was noted the proposal of a hammer head would not be built on City property.

Bertenshaw asked how the City is currently accessing the detention facility for maintenance? Brown was not sure, but noted the location of the existing oil well road. He added he does not know if this could have been used and whether or not an agreement exists any longer with regards to this.

Gose & Associate's Roger Gose spoke in favor of this request and presented the commission with a visual aide (prepared in August of 1997) to indicate the three proposals they had made to handle the access issue with the City. Mr. Gose explained the workings of each of the three proposals and noted the offer had been made to put in option #3 (acceptance of the hammer head turnaround on City property) at no cost to the City. Gose referred to a memorandum he received from the City regarding the proposals (memo dated August 18). He explained the memo indicates City staff found the hammer head unacceptable due to the numerous backings which vehicles would have to make. It was also noted that the Subdivision Regulations prohibit the use of private reserve strips to deny access to a new public street from adjacent property (in the memorandum). Gose added the memo states that it was felt that the Planning Commission's intent with the approval of the plat granted included working out the exact location of a turnaround considering the drainage needs, but do it in a way which at least borders the City property in order to provide needed access. The memorandum as read by Mr. Gose went on to address concerns regarding access and parking for future needs. Mr. Gose indicated this memorandum was the end of communication at that point.

Mr. Gose explained in the most-recent Development Review Committee meeting, he had understood City staff wished to extend the right-of-way to the south property line with the City extending the paving. Gose stated the park land was donated to the City in the early 80's by Mr. Rusty Kraybill due to the flooding conditions downstream - the donation was made with the understanding that the land would be utilized for detention. Gose agreed the City may have made an error in design of the detention in that they cut themselves off from access. Mr. Gose explained the access of the oil well road which was previously utilized by Alexander Energy Corporation. Gose stated the offer has been made to put in the drainage flume with the cul-de-sac. Gose added he believes the Comprehensive Plan supports this plan.

Commissioner Patton asked if option #3 still is workable - at no cost to the City placing a hammer head on City property? Gose said yes.

Commissioner Vaught sought clarification for the difference in selecting option #3 or deadending it? Gose noted if it is just deadend, then there is no turnaround for vehicles (such as sanitation vehicles). Gose added without a turnaround of some type, vehicles will pull into neighbor's driveways and turnaround.

Vaught referred to Option #2 and asked what Mr. Gose's opinion is of this? Gose noted this places the cul-de-sac half on the park property and requires the City to pay for the additional length of street in order to move it down. Gose noted how this selection would interfere with two of the lots frontages. Mr. Gose believed if the plans are to place a park in this area, then the City is going to need some parking at some point.

Patton said Option #3 appears to provide the turnaround and maybe even a few temporary parking spaces. He noted this option is at no cost to the City. Gose said this is not the most desirable as citizens will come through the neighborhood to gain access to the park. Gose pointed out the hammer head turnaround gains the City access and the developer is not out any expense.

Vaught asked what Mr. Gose would think of leaving the situation with an option to open it up later, then the City would have the choice of whether to access through or build another road? Gose expressed caution that this would devalue the two lots on the end for the developer. Both parties noted this devaluation would be dependent upon whether or not the park develops.

Commissioner Miller asked what is the difference in the devalue component if the hammer head is utilized? Gose explained the City desires this to be dedicated as right-of-way with a street through. Gose said it is his opinion it would devalue the lots.

Patton believed a problem will develop if this matter is not handled now versus giving an easement. He pointed out citizens will park in the cul-de-sac to access the park and believed this will upset the residents.

Vaught agreed the right-of-way issue does need to be resolved, but stated his concern is that if it is going to be that large of an area; then, perhaps it is beneficial to have a road.

Mike Ebert, 2724 North Monroe, spoke in favor of this project - he noted he has no interest in this property whatsoever. Mr. Ebert wished to address this issue from a builder's standpoint. He noted living on a cul-de-sac is certainly more desirable and is good planning. Ebert explained how difficult it would be to sell lots when you can't explain to the customers what the limitations are with regards to what is going to happen. Ebert encouraged the commission not penalize the development of this property for an error the City made. He noted the dirt which was removed from the detention may be replaced in such a way that the access the City needs to the park can be handled. Ebert concluded Mr. Al Raby (who the City has hired as a consultant to lead the community through development of a new Comprehensive Plan 2020) has recommended cul-de-sacs as good planning and favorable.

Don Short, Route 1, Box 384, spoke in favor of this request and stated his only interest in this development is as a potential investor. He expressed concern that having access through this area for the public to gain entrance to a park could present a problem.

Responding to Commissioner Miller's question as to what the reality is with regards to a street going through, Brown replied there is an area along the back side of the detention pond where a road may be placed without too much trouble. He noted this has been used for access to the oil well. Miller asked if there is room for parking? Brown said for a very small parking lot. Miller said if this does develop as a park, then it sounds as though there is going to be quite a bit of expense involved - she noted the issue of coming in off Manning Street. Brown said it is viable that the configuration of the pond may be changed - he noted additional tax payer money would be needed to do such. Miller stated the community would be spending more tax payer money to do this for the tax payers anyway. Brown concluded if there is a method to compare the extension of that road coming down versus one coming off of Manning Street, then perhaps reconfiguring the pond and changing the road could be made economical - he complimented Commissioner Miller on making this good point.

Vaught went through the factors which would most likely need to occur before the park becomes a potential reality - loosing the lease at Skyline, funds appropriations, etc. Brown stated vehicular access may not be the choice for this small neighborhood park - he noted the option of pedestrian access only exists.

The group briefly discussed the number of neighborhood parks which have pedestrian access only in the community - it was noted the Park Planner has pointed out there are complaints from residents in each case where parking is not provided.

Patton focused the group on whether or not there is enough room for on-street parking? Brown replied this is discouraged on a collector street such as Manning.

There was some discussion regarding the potential of selling the property the City now owns. It was felt by Mr. Brown this represents a gift to the City which was intended for community benefit and should be utilized for the citizen's enjoyment or safety.

Commissioner Bertenshaw expressed her opinion that if this is utilized as a small neighborhood park in the future that it would be most beneficial as a pedestrian park. She did not favor the developer accommodating the situation.

Patton said the more he hears from the discussion the more he believes this is going to develop, if at all, as a small neighborhood, pedestrian-accessed park. He favored the cul-de-sac with drainage flume and allowing the City to access for maintenance purposes.

Vaught noted the access is determined on the basis of the use of the property. Vaught stated his belief that with an access to a park, safety should be the first consideration. He did not favor public access to a park through the neighborhood. Vaught noted emergency access would be coming from a direction in which they would have to go around through the neighborhood instead of more direct access off Manning.

Bertenshaw favored the use of a pedestrian easement to access the park. Vaught noted this proposal would eliminate the 60 feet and shrink it down to approximately 20 feet. Brown agreed the pedestrian easement is beneficial for the public.

Chair Nordquist proposed requiring 20-foot wide access off the end of the cul-de-sac into the park as a pedestrian access. He noted it would need to be labeled in such a way as to cover the maintenance vehicles. Nordquist noted a walking trail along the north/sound end would assist with pedestrian access.

Brown cautioned the only argument he recalled that the Park Planner would likely offer is that by providing the possibility of future vehicular access, we have not made a decision today which totally limits what can be done with this piece of property.

Miller said she did not believe the decision would totally limit the City as there is vehicular access available if the detention is reconfigured to provide for such.

Responding to Commissioner Patton's question, Gose stated with regards to item #2 the easements will be worked out before the final plat is filed. Brown explained if the full 20 feet is not needed, then the number can be adjusted accordingly.

It was noted the sidewalk issue was handled at the preliminary plat stage - sidewalks will be in place. They are currently existing along Sunrise and Manning Streets.

Bertenshaw asked approximately how many houses exist in the Andrew's Hills Addition? Brown responded around 25. Bertenshaw asked if the residents of this addition were notified? She noted the third-end lot is larger than the others and discussed the age difference of new construction merging with older homes. Patton stated he did not recall anyone from the general public present at the preliminary plat stage to address any concerns. Brown replied he is not sure notice was sent as this is around the time the Planning Commission made the decision to increase the types of cases for which we are required to send out notice.

Responding to the Commissioner's questions, Brown replied he believed City staff would be pleased to receive a pedestrian easement.

Gose noted the flume will be about 8-to-10 feet large - he recommended 10-to-20 feet as the number. In answer to Chair Nordquist's question, Gose recommended making it a drainage easement to give the City the right to maintain a drainage facility. He noted in his discussion with the Drainage Engineer, they believed this would work. Mr. Gose was not objectionable to utilizing other verbiage.

Brown provided City staff's recommendation from the March 18 report.

4. Consider a request from the Indonesian Church for approval of a SPECIAL USE PERMIT for a church and training center located at 1101 South Lowry Street. (UP-144)

Community Development Director Wesley provided the location, zoning, physical description, and surrounding uses of this request. The Comprehensive Plan calls for maintaining residential character of the neighborhood. The church plans to house trainees in the facility for an educational process - they propose 5-to-8 trainees residing in the facility at a time during their training tenure.

Commissioner Miller indicated there is a possible concern by the Fire Marshal as noted in staff's report.

Brown responded the Fire Marshal has not yet confirmed his opinion with the Building Official at this point. The Fire Marshal, as presented by Brown, feels this use is considered a change from the previous assembly only use of this property (as a church). The change places this use in a classification similar to that for other group quarters. The trainees are estimated to spend approximately 30 days at the facility during their educational phase. The Fire Marshal finds that a fire suppression system will probably be necessary for the new use. The estimated cost of such might run about $1.50 per square foot - there is approximately 2 to 3,000 square feet (area to be used for residential occupancy, plus the exit portion) which would need the suppression system. Due to the safety consideration, the Fire Marshal recommends compliance with requirement of this item.

Brown pointed out there is the potential for 16 trainees to be housed in the basement area due to the size of the area. Brown suggested the commission may desire to limit the number of trainees due to the parking, etc.

Wesley presented the three option's from staff's March 18 report and offered staff's recommendation.

Commissioner Miller asked about the signage planned for this site? Brown stated he is unaware if they are planning any additions to the current signage.

5. Consider a request from Blackburn Properties for approval of a MINOR SUBDIVISION of two parcels located at 616 North Perkins Road. (MS-309/MS-310)

City Planner Brown stated there are two minor subdivisions requested by the applicant - it is owned currently by two, different property owners. Brown provided the physical description, location, zoning, and surrounding uses of this request. It is the applicant's intent to take the two existing deeds which exist, split them and reconfigure them - the result would be two, separate parcels which are shaped differently. Brown reviewed the proposed means of access to the two tracts which would be created.

The uniqueness to the proposal would be that Tract B would end up located behind Tract A and possibly landlocked. Brown explained there would be an access easement across the northern boundary of Tract A - access would be to the north out of that tract. The present drawing does not indicate this easement at the current time nor is there an easement indicated along the south boundary of Tract A, noted Brown. Staff will need to guarantee there is a means to gain utilities to the west tract. Plans are for the electric service to go along the north easement of Perkins Road with the remaining utilities having to utilize the location along the southern boundary of Perkins Road or find their own location.

There is some question regarding the right-of-way on Perkins Road - there is a jog in the right-of-way on this property from the north/south where apparently there is 33 feet existing; but, on this property there is 43 feet. Brown stated this is adequate, but there is uncertainty as to whether only 10 feet of this is true City ownership and that the remainder may still be roadway easement (out to the center of the road). Staff suggests rededication of this to ensure actual right-of-way ownership.

With regards to the issue of sidewalks, Brown said there is an existing sidewalk in place on the frontage of Perkins Road, contrary to the information within the staff report.

Brown referred to the private easements which will be needed for the east tract (sanitary sewer crosses one tract to gain access to the other tract). The private water easement will be needed (this cannot go in a public easement). It is staff's preference not to result in a public extension of the water main to the rear of the site - this would cause increased maintenance costs of constantly flushing the fire hydrant, noted Brown.

Responding to Commissioner Vaught's concern, Brown pointed out the location of the proposed sewer easements on the wall map. He was unsure if it will go straight north or require angling due to the contours/elevation, etc. Brown ensured the commission both lots can be adequately served if all private and public easements and shared-access drives are in place.

Stillwater Engineering & Consulting's Terry Stamback spoke in favor of this request and explained the two, 15-foot utility easements proposed. He also noted the rear property sanitary sewer easement location. Stamback provided the access easement location and noted this development will result in two tracts. Mr. Stamback addressed the location of private easements on the wall map and noted these are necessary to guarantee water/sewer for both tracts. With regards to the right-of-way issue along Perkins Road, Stamback stated they found the documentation which is 3-foot wide along the property. They are awaiting legal opinion of whether this is a right-of-way or an easement. If it is an easement, Stamback explained they will need to dedicate it as right-of-way.

Brown provided staff options from the March 18 report and offered staff's recommendation of approval subject to five conditions.

There was brief discussion regarding the dedication of the utility easement along the southern boundary - it was agreed a 15-foot public utility easement would be sufficient in size. This item was unavailable at the time of the writing of the minor subdivision report, but was noted at the time of writing of the site plan report to follow. Brown explained there is a potential conflict with acceptance of this easement as this is where the applicant is proposing trees. Staff can allow small trees located in an utility easement, but the ordinance states they must be 5 feet from any utility line.

Commissioner Bertenshaw complimented Planning Technician Inger Peters on how helpful the color coding of the map had been in interpreting this request.

Community Development Director Wesley noted the physical description, location, zoning, and surrounding uses of this request were presented with the previously-approved minor subdivision (MS309/310). The site plan indicates a building of approximately 24,000-square-feet to be located towards the rear of the site. Two access points are planned. Wesley noted the parking spaces of 80 were calculated based on the retail space - had added it is not all retail space, however. A sign is indicated on the site plan at the entrance to the site.

As staff reviewed this site plan, they identified three Comprehensive Plan issues which needed to be considered: Urban Design, Traffic Hazards, and Residential Compatibility. It was noted this proposed development is located on the Sensitive Development Corridor.

Urban Design. The conceptual landscape plan exceeds the nine percent requirement and does indicate point requirements toward the frontage. The trees indicated along the southern property line may be a problem (as noted in the minor subdivision review) due to the location too near utilities. The plan indicates slightly over 4800 points, they need slightly over 4700 points to be in compliance. Wesley pointed out there is 50 points difference in small trees versus medium trees with regards to the size proposed in the southern boundary.

Traffic Hazards. Staff notes good access will be provided by the existing driveway - there is some concern though that the existing driveway is offset from the one across the street into Pioneer Square in a manner which makes left turns difficult. The proposed southern driveway is in a better location in relation to surrounding driveways. Staff notes also the proposed sidewalk on Perkins Road and believes it could be located west of the overhead utility lines in the area between the two driveways. If the sidewalk stays out by the street, it might be helpful to have it widened to eight feet.

Residential Compatibility. The existing residential uses in the area will be fairly isolated from this site with the combination of the retaining wall and landscaping to soften the impact in the area. There has been no information received regarding lighting, so this has not been evaluated by staff. Staff notes the loading dock is proposed on the north side and finds this is superior to the south side as a greater impact would take place if proposed there. Staff has considered the impact of shining car lights from this site into the mobile home area, but finds due to the elevation the lights will be shining above the homes rather than into them.

Wesley stated the site appears to be well designed and should function well. He provided the few ordinance requirements and other suggestions staff would make for changes from staff's March 18 report.

Commissioners Bertenshaw and Miller brought up the issues of parking spaces required, dumpster screening, and bicycle spaces. Wesley explained they had done some checking regarding what could actually be counted as retailed space - it was noted there are 125 spaces proposed which meet the requirement by ordinance, but may not be what is actually needed for the site. Wesley explained a condition can be added to screen the dumpster, but stated he was not concerned during his review due to the change in elevation. Staff noted 10 percent of the required parking is the number to utilize in determining required bicycle parking spaces.

Stillwater Engineering & Consulting's Terry Stamback spoke in favor of this request and addressed the five noted items on page 3 of staff's March 18 report. With regards to each of them items:

Item #1 - electric service easement (north side) - this has been handled with the minor subdivision.

Item #2 - elimination of the two parking spaces which are conflicting - an island has been moved and the configuration changed in order to keep the spaces to backing into the main entry on the south side.

Item #3 - landscape requirement for an additional island in the center of the parking lot - the applicant is proposing placement of an additional island in the center of the parking lot. The applicant has no problem in adjusting the landscaping points toward the front accordingly with reduction in the size of trees allowed in the southern boundary. It was noted the area of the retaining wall will have weep holes for drainage and have 5 percent slope. A landscape architect will be providing a landscaping plan.

Item #4 - parking spaces in the sight triangle - a waiver from the City Engineer will be requested. If this is not granted, there will still be enough parking even with the loss of two spaces.

Item #5 - bicycle parking area - this is proposed to be located at the southeast corner of the building in the five-foot sidewalk area. The sidewalk is there to prevent moisture penetration along this side of the building - it is not intended for access. It was noted the plans are to place these on the south side of the building due to pedestrian conflicts which would exist if they were located in other locations.

With regards to the optional items, Stamback addressed these also:

Option 2 (a) - adding landscape material along the front of the site - the applicant intends to do this.

Option 2 (b) - widening proposed sidewalk to 8 feet or movement west of utility poles - the location of the sidewalk as now proposed was noted on the wall map.

Option 2 © - removal of the two parking spaces backing into the southern entrance - has been handled.

Option 2 (d) - detail on lighting - the applicant is proposing low-level lighting for the parking lot with security lighting on the corners of the building - this will be aimed toward the ground.

Option 2 (e) - detail on proposed signage - this item was noted addressed at this time.

In conclusion, Mr. Stamback pointed out they had lost two additional parking spaces with the addition of the suggested island - with the other island, they do have some additional space to move it north to line up with the island on the other side. Stamback explained one of the requirements of the owner of the facility is a certain number of parking spaces - they are now at the limit of what the developer is requiring for the facility. He proposed movement of this 10 feet north to pick up the two additional spaces. In order to assist truck traffic around the corner, they propose shortening the length of the islands from 40 feet in length to 20 feet in length. This is needed on the north and south ends.

Commissioner Miller expressed concern that with cutting the length of the islands the landscaping requirement may be difficult to meet. She noted the limitations in the site plan for landscaping at this point. Stamback provided computations to indicate how he could pick up the point requirements. Mr. Stamback was willing to make any adjustments suggested.

In consideration of Commissioner Miller's question regarding drainage, Stamback explained the flow pattern and the detention agreement between the two property owners.

Stamback responded to Commissioner Bertenshaw's clarification regarding the left turn out of the entrance. He explained there is an agreement between the two property owners concerning the driveway and any limitation placed on the driveway could create a difficult situation. Mr. Stamback stated this is an unencumbered easement, and if it were made no left turn; then, it will be encumbered. He did not believe there will be conflicts and noted the semi use of this area will not be during peak times.

Stamback stated they still have 4-to-1 slopes where they can get access to the other property and are assuming if the adjacent property ever develops, they will desire to fill and match the elevation planned for this site. He added they would assume in the access agreement this applicant would allow them to access or pay for cutting an access to the drive as opposed to putting it in now. It is believed this can be handled between the two properties with an agreement.

Commissioner Vaught pointed out his understanding there is going to be a drop with the south drive in the elevation. Stamback clarified the retaining wall location and the fill location - he did not find a drop for the south drive.

Wesley referred to staff's March 18 report and presented the options as well as staff's recommendation along with the optional considerations. He added in the access easement along the North side to provide access to Tract B.

Commissioner Miller referred to item 2 (e) under Options of staff's March 18 report and sought clarification. Wesley explained there is no specific design objectives with regards to signage.

Ron Bradley, 2601 South August, a nearby property owner, spoke concerning this request. He noted there is drainage concern in the area and wished to be assured this is being carefully considered to not increase the flow. He also noted concerns with wildlife which might be attracted with the creation of a detention pond.

Stamback responded to these concerns and explained the drainage plans for the site. He noted the detention they are planning will hold water. Bradley indicated he has no objection to the pond as long as it is maintained. Mr. Bradley noted there is already a problem in the area with mice, raccoons, etc.

Miller asked if the drainage engineer has reviewed this plan? Wesley indicated it has been submitted, but not yet approved.

Miller indicated there are two issues which need to be resolved - the landscaping and drainage - she asked if we are jumping ahead again?

The group did not second this motion - Staff provided explanation of the dates the conceptual plans are required - it was determined the applicant had met the requirements in the process to this point. Staff did point out there have been enough changes to the landscaping plan that the commission may desire to require a revised, conceptual landscaping plan in place prior to the City Commission stage in order to assist them in their review. The group expressed their strong opinion that the applicant do more than the minimum requirements as they are located on the sensitive development corridor and that Mr. Bradley's property remain protected.

1. An easement is needed for the electric service along the north side of the property. These easement may need to include other utilities to provide for development of the property to the west.
2. There are two parking spaces which back directly into the traffic entering the southern driveway. Consideration should be given to eliminating these two spaces to prevent conflicts at this point.
3. The landscape ordinance specifies the maximum distance a parking space can be from a landscape area. The middle of the parking area just east of the building exceeds this distance. To correct this, an additional landscape island is required.
4. There are parking spaces shown in the sight triangles. These must be moved unless a waiver is obtained from the city engineer.
5. Bicycle parking must be shown on the site plan.

1. Consideration of possible alternative means of providing sanitary sewer service to the area south of 32^nd Avenue and west of Sangre Road.

Stillwater Engineering & Consulting's Terry Stamback wished to revisit an issue which arose when the two lots which were part of the Deer Creek Crossing final plat was heard at the most-recent meeting - he noted he had done additional research concerning the sewer availability in the area. Mr. Stamback provided the location and surrounding uses of this request on the wall map. Stamback provided the location of a sewer manhole and described the flow pattern. In order to serve sewer in the area with the proposed development, the applicant will need to tie into the manhole. Mr. Stamback explained how they plan to tie on to this. He also provided scenarios of a layout of 12 potential lots for the area - the number proposed did exceed the prior number of four which was proposed. Economically, to make this site function, more lots are needed in order to share the sewer cost. Mr. Stamback estimated the cost of sewer to be $30,000 to $35,000 to run the sewer to this location. He noted if the sewer is run to the location, he can envision the return of other applicants requesting applications. Stamback noted they are proposing a PUD-type concept for development of this.

Mr. Stamback stated they wished to seek direction and opinion from the commission before they pursue this further noting that doing three lots is not economically feasible as compared to the proposal of twelve. He provided the dimensions of the lots (100 x 140) and noted these are not small lots. Stamback noted compared to the lot sizes in the surrounding areas, these are not large lots though.

Mr. Stamback noted if they cannot propose something like this, then they need to pursue two lots with septic and laterals.

Issues of compatibility, increased density, annexation issues, use of micro-treatment plants for single-family homes were discussed. The group felt from an environmental perspective, it is responsible to place the sewer in the area. They felt the use of micro-treatment plants would not be financially feasible ($6,000 per property with repetitive inspection fees). It was noted this property is surrounded on three sides by property which has been annexed. The group felt this area would develop regardless of the decision on extension of City services and noted the potential down the road of an environmental problem. It was noted the issue to weigh is -- will the increased density be a concern for the surrounding development (Sangre Ridge) as this development will be utilizing their entrance for access?

Stamback and Brown both agreed this development could handle six lots without too great of an impact. Chair Nordquist encouraged the applicant that consideration could at least be given to a proposal for six lots.

5. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION.

Vice-Chair Bertenshaw complimented staff on the preparation of the February 18 Planning Commission minutes.

Chair Nordquist wished his son, Chad Nordquist, a Happy Birthday!

Commissioner Miller stated she had reviewed Technical Memorandum #4 from the Comprehensive Plan update - she encouraged some mention of working with the County on planning in the goals/objectives section. She noted also under safety issues "Police and Fire" need to also be mentioned under goals/objectives in order to receive support from the community.

Miller complimented Ms. Inger Peters on the excellent job she had done as the Camera Technician for the Commission - Ms. Peters is no longer available to work evenings of the commission's meetings, so a replacement will need to be found.

6. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS FROM STAFF.

City Planner Brown reminded Assistant City Attorney Shilling the issue of filing minor subdivisions again arose during this evening's meeting - one of the lots had been recently split without the Planning Commission's approval. Brown expressed his concern of the amount of property which is changing hands without the commission's review. Mr. Shilling indicated this is on the Legal Team's priority list to address.

This regularly scheduled meeting of the Stillwater Planning Commission was called for adjournment by Chair Nordquist at 9:42 p.m. with all members in agreement -- the next regularly scheduled meeting will be held Wednesday, April 1, 1998, 5:30 p.m., City Commissioners' Hearing Room, Municipal Building, 723 South Lewis.